GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

New Posts

Liveleak videos of the shooting and Slager appearance before judge are okay to link so long as they are raw footage (unedited).
 
dodie20 said:
we're not given the same protection. For one thing we're not allowed to go Home, relax and decompress. Here's a quote from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/son-deceased ' The officer, Sean Wallace, thought that the man was holding a gun. It turned out to be a spoon. Shortly after the shooting, Wallace received five hundred dollars from the Albuquerque police union, which routinely gave money to officers to help them “decompress” after a shooting, according to a statement issued by the union’s president and vice-president. ' We're not treated with these kid gloves, but then again, I wouldn't expect to be. But I wouldn't expect cops to be treated this way either. moo
Click to expand...

But you and I are not expected to be in high pressure, life and death struggles on a routine basis. You and I do not NEED the same legal protections. Why would someone want to be in a job where they are EXPECTED to have physical confrontations with civilians, yet not have legal protections when things are questioned and scrutinized?
 
dodie20 said:
I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo
Click to expand...
bbm

Not sure if ^poster is in US.
In US we "regular folks" are generally not obligated to answer LE questions,
because of our Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.*
And there's also 6th Amendment Right to Counsel.**
Constitutional rights former LEO Slager also has and is free to exercise.

JM2cts.
______________________________________________________________________________________
* FWIW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
"Black's Law Dictionary (USA):SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence against himself."
"Barron's Law Dictionary (USA):
SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination. This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE FIFTH) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1,8, and is applicable in any situation, civil or criminal where the state attempts to compel incriminating testimony."
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel
 
dodie20 said:
I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days and unfortunately, I do think this is standard procedure. One article referred to it as ' decompressing'... so if they have a name for it, I'd guess it's the norm. smh, I could just imagine the reaction if us regular folks decided we wanted to go home and decompress after killing somebody. moo
Click to expand...

The only "article" that I have seen that mentions it's standard procedure to allow the officer time to decompress prior to answering questions was not from MSM.

SLED investigators actually arrived on scene to question Slager. Had he not mentioned wanting his attorney present, I suspect he would not have been given any "decompression" time considering they pushed pretty hard to get him to talk since they were suspicious of his actions based on evidence at the scene.
SLED agents arrived at the scene at 10:29 a.m. April 4, about 51 minutes after Patrolman 1st Class Michael Slager fatally shot Scott in the back as Scott ran away. They later asked Slager to answer some questions.

“When our investigators spoke with ... Slager at the scene, he said he was represented by an attorney,” SLED spokesman Thom Berry said Tuesday. “We stopped questioning him and contacted his attorney.”

The agency has said that investigators developed early suspicions of Slager from evidence they found at the scene, but Berry for the first time Tuesday indicated the extent to which they pushed the officer to clarify his account.

After Slager deflected their request, the agents got in touch with his lawyer, David Aylor, who said he would make the officer available for an interview three days later, on April 7, Berry said.
Click to expand...

The article goes on to discuss the interview and Slager's subsequent arrest. It also mentions Aylor's withdrawal as counsel and Slager's new attorney Andy Savage. It states Savage's past opinion regarding the original topic of this post, but did not identify it necessarily as standard procedure.

Like many attorneys for officers involved in shootings, Savage has said in the past that the officers can better recall incidents after a few days of rest.
Click to expand...

http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...r-after-dropping-early-attempt-at-questioning
 
Cubby said:
Very interesting article. Based on my understanding, it appears Slager will very likely walk. And basically it really doesn't matter whether Slager was tased or not. The struggle over the taser was enough justification for Slager to use deadly force. As the law is written, that is........

The argument should then turn to changing the law...... Otherwise we might as well give PO's the ability to shoot to kill anyone they :censored: well feel like.


.....and if Slager does get out of the charges does that mean he can appeal the decision to have him fired and get his job back?

SMH, the law as written makes no sense.
Click to expand...

We have yet to see a shred of evidence that there was a struggle over the taser. All we have thus far is Slager's claim that Scott "grabbed" it.

What we do have, though, is an eyewitness who has directly contradicted Slager's claim.
 
Greater Than said:
We have yet to see a shred of evidence that there was a struggle over the taser. All we have thus far is Slager's claim that Scott "grabbed" it.

What we do have, though, is an eyewitness who has directly contradicted Slager's claim.
Click to expand...

I am no Slager supporter. What he did disgusts me and I think he should be found guilty of murder. However, if you look at the MSM link in post #4, you will see how an LEO only needs to *believe* his life is in danger in order to be justified in using lethal force.

Whether Scott "grabbed" the taser is, imo, a mute point. There was some kind of physical contact between the two during which the taser, two cartridges and Scott's baseball cap fell to the ground. It could have simply been Slager dropping the taser or bumping into Scott the wrong way causing them to drop. However, all he has to do is believe he was in danger.

I don't like it, but if the legal info/analogy in the msm linked in post #4 is accurate it looks like Slager could walk. Sadly, my opinion and the repercussions Slager should face may not be in accordance with SC law.
 
Cubby said:
I am no Slager supporter. What he did disgusts me and I think he should be found guilty of murder. However, if you look at the MSM link in post #4, you will see how an LEO only needs to *believe* his life is in danger in order to be justified in using lethal force.

Whether Scott "grabbed" the taser is, imo, a mute point. There was some kind of physical contact between the two during which the taser, two cartridges and Scott's baseball cap fell to the ground. It could have simply been Slager dropping the taser or bumping into Scott the wrong way causing them to drop. However, all he has to do is believe he was in danger.

I don't like it, but if the legal info/analogy in the msm linked in post #4 is accurate it looks like Slager could walk. Sadly, my opinion and the repercussions Slager should face may not be in accordance with SC law.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the jury will take Slagers word that he believed his life was in danger or will they look at all of the evidence and see if he had a legitimate reason to believe that his life or anyone else's were in danger when he fired his weapon. JMO.
 
RANCH said:
I wonder if the jury will take Slagers word that he believed his life was in danger or will they look at all of the evidence and see if he had a legitimate reason to believe that his life or anyone else's were in danger when he fired his weapon. JMO.
Click to expand...

there are other witnesses that said there was a "tussle", so they won't have to rely on Slager's word.
 
I agree, Cubby. I think it's unlikely Slager will be indicted for murder. A lesser charge, perhaps, but I think it's equally likely he might not be indicted at all. Presentation to the GJ will likely take several weeks. It's my opinion they won't indict for murder-- but that depends on how the process of GJ selection goes. I am interested in how the GJ selection will occur, since it seems there is not already a GJ seated.

I would have more confidence in the GJ system if the GJ had been seated before the incident. As it stands now, there is an extraordinary amount of social and political pressure potential for undue influence on the GJ selection for me to have complete confidence in the process. There is much will and popular pressure for indictment and conviction-- it will take a very unbiased GJ to hear the case without allowing that to influence their decision. As they say-- a prosecutor can easily get a ham sandwich indicted.

Question is, if not indicted, can a prosecutor press on with prosecution anyway?

I believe there was an organized "rush" to get ahead of the potential social response to this case, to charge him, arrest him, and fire him, before the entire situation was thoughtfully examined. JMO.
 
shadowraiths said:
3202d77f.gif
Does officer who shot Walter Scott have a defense? State law there - like in Missouri - is confusing

The police killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina looks like an open and shut case of murder. But South Carolina, like Missouri and many other states, has confusing laws on police use of deadly force – laws that could provide Officer Michael Slager with a defense, experts say.

Because of outdated and conflicting law, an officer sometimes can justify shooting an unarmed suspect who has fought with the officer and fled. In short, an officer sometimes can get away with what may look like murder on the video screen.​

EYESR_zps1dff9e53.gif

St Louis Public Radio
Click to expand...

Carrying to the current page for snippets from the above link:

<snip>

It is true, experts say, that Garner determines the constitutional standard to be used in civil cases when a victim&#8217;s family claims a violation of civil rights and tries to collect damages.
But the murder charge against Slager is criminal, not civil. Garner does not automatically determine the standard for a criminal case when an officer is charged with killing a fleeing felon

<snip>

In Sheppard v. State in 2004, the South Carolina Supreme Court wrote: &#8220;&#8230;a law enforcement officer may use whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a felon including deadly force, if necessary, to effect that arrest.&#8221;
<snip>


Other South Carolina Supreme Court decisions further confuse the situation.
In a 1989 decision, the state supreme court said it would give the shooter in a self-defense situation the &#8220;right to act on appearances&#8221; that he was in danger, even if he wasn&#8217;t actually in danger.
&#8220;A defendant must show that he believed he was in imminent danger, not that he was actually in such danger, because he had the right to act on appearances&#8230;&#8221; (emphasis added.)

<snip>

Slager also would be aided by another decision of the South Carolina courts that requires the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer didn&#8217;t believe he was in imminent danger. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt what was in an officer&#8217;s mind makes the prosecutor&#8217;s job doubly hard, say the experts.

 
Cubby said:
I am no Slager supporter. What he did disgusts me and I think he should be found guilty of murder. However, if you look at the MSM link in post #4, you will see how an LEO only needs to *believe* his life is in danger in order to be justified in using lethal force.

Whether Scott "grabbed" the taser is, imo, a mute point. There was some kind of physical contact between the two during which the taser, two cartridges and Scott's baseball cap fell to the ground. It could have simply been Slager dropping the taser or bumping into Scott the wrong way causing them to drop. However, all he has to do is believe he was in danger.

I don't like it, but if the legal info/analogy in the msm linked in post #4 is accurate it looks like Slager could walk. Sadly, my opinion and the repercussions Slager should face may not be in accordance with SC law.
Click to expand...

He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.
 
Greater Than said:
He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The first eyewitness claimed that both men were in a struggle "on the floor" (widely reported in the MSM) and in fact if you carefully analyze the witness video (posted to all the MSM sites) in the first few frames you can see that indeed the two men appear to be in a struggle on the ground.

If forensic evidence can back up the claim made by officer Slager that Scott "grabbed (his) taser" I think that it would be very easy to convince a jury that the officer indeed was in genuine fear for his life (I know I sure would be under similar circumstances) and that under the circumstances the killing was legal.

I agree the video of officer Slager shooting Scott in the back looks awful but it may very well turn out to be lawful.
 
KEVINinTO said:
Not necessarily. The first eyewitness claimed that both men were in a struggle "on the floor" (widely reported in the MSM) and in fact if you carefully analyze the witness video (posted to all the MSM sites) in the first few frames you can see that indeed the two men appear to be in a struggle on the ground.

If forensic evidence can back up the claim made by officer Slager that Scott "grabbed (his) taser" I think that it would be very easy to convince a jury that the officer indeed was in genuine fear for his life (I know I sure would be under similar circumstances) and that under the circumstances the killing was legal.

I agree the video of officer Slager shooting Scott in the back looks awful but it may very well turn out to be lawful.
Click to expand...

How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?
 
KaaBoom said:
How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?
Click to expand...

One need only live here a few years to think their life might be in danger, or that he would endanger another. Walk a mile in our moccasin... :thinking:
 
KaaBoom said:
How could that turn out lawful? How could he be in genuine fear for his life when the victim was running away? Forget about what happened before. How was he in fear for his life at the time he shot?
Click to expand...

BBM for focus.

I think the most salient point is that no one can or should "forget about what happened before." The "before" was only seconds preceding the shooting. The victim was also a felony suspect at the moment of the shooting. The suspect's behavior escalated and became more erratic and violent as the entire situation unfolded. The officer could not have reasonably expected this suspect to be unarmed until that was proven, IMO. The victim/ suspect was considered dangerous to officers AND the general public at the time of the shooting, IMO. He wasn't "just" fleeing-- he was fleeing after a physical encounter with a police officer-- which I believe clearly fits the legal definition of assault on the officer. None of us knows why Mr. Scott was willing to do something like that. Especially over a simple traffic stop.

I think the Grand Jury will have to evaluate the entire encounter, from beginning to end. Not just a few frames of the video taken out of context. The situation evolved in a very worrisome direction, IMO, directly due to the actions of Mr. Scott-- which is evident to me from the police cruiser dash video that precedes the bystander video.
 
perplexed1 said:
One need only live here a few years to think their life might be in danger, or that he would endanger another. Walk a mile in our moccasin... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Exactly, you don't know what you don't know.
 
Greater Than said:
He's going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that he *believed* his life was in danger when said danger was running in the opposite direction of the person who allegedly feared for his life.
Click to expand...

Legally, the prosecution has the burden to prove he didn't believe his life was in danger. (see St. Louis public radio link upthread).
IDK if Slager dropping the taser next to a deceased Scott will be enough to prove Scott did not believe he was in danger.
 
I believe that this case, in addition to other recent cases that have involved police shooting deaths, should be addressed with mini GoPro cameras to be worn by the officers. They could loop around the back of the head, like a retainer brace, and the camera could serve as a birds-eye view of the officers experience. They could be turned on only when an officer was on duty or in pursuit, and would serve to show the facts of a situation so that there could be no dispute. Much in the same way a dash camera shows an officers traffic stop, the head camera, or similar micro camera in the badge, would serve as an observance of any meeting between the officer and a suspect. If there is a question, you go to the tape. In this particular case, it would allow us to see if there was a struggle for the tazer, and whether or not there was any threat posed to the officer, and he would not have been charged with murder. Just a thought about what seems to be an ever growing issue in our law enforcement field.
 
Like the tasers, the body cameras are costly. Mayor Summey has said they will buy body cameras. One church has donated 25. My take on the taser is that he retrieved it from where it was dropped and brought it over to where Scott was because it is an expensive item, and one barb was attached to Scott. I didn't see it as planting, since the other officer was there, and Slager had even seen the guy with the phone, but I may be wrong.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/28750186/body-cameras-on-the-way-for-north-charleston-police-mayor-says

http://www.timesunion.com/news/crim...North-Charleston-chief-s-outreach-6195726.php
 
Cubby said:
Legally, the prosecution has the burden to prove he didn't believe his life was in danger. (see St. Louis public radio link upthread).
IDK if Slager dropping the taser next to a deceased Scott will be enough to prove Scott did not believe he was in danger.
Click to expand...

The prosecution has plenty of proof that he didn't believe his life was in danger when he gunned Scott down.

1. The video. Visual proof that the victim was running away from - not towards - the former officer when he drew his pistol and fired eight rounds.

2. An eyewitness. An eyewitness account of the same as above.

3. The autopsy. Medical proof that five of the eight shots hit his intended target with the cause of death being multiple gunshot wounds to the back.

Firing eight times at someone's back as they are running away from you will never ever be legal self defense. You do not believe your life is in danger of a fleeing man. If Slager had shot him during the "tussle," IMO he would have a better defense, but that didn't happen. He shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot, and shot at Scott from behind after the taser/tussle incident was over. That is murder all day long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 4,373 (members: 210, guests: 4,163)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
4,163
Total visitors
4,373
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,759
Messages
17,958,489
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top